An institution’s trade secrets generally include confidential information with commercial value.  Trade secret protection may be available by common law, under state laws, or under federal law.  In addition, there may be both civil and criminal causes of action for the misappropriation and theft of trade secrets.

For instance, the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) is a United States federal law that allows an owner of a trade secret to sue in federal court when its trade secrets have been misappropriated through “improper means.”[1]  Such “improper means” can include “theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means.”[2]

Trade secrets can be used by institutions to protect numerous types of information.  For instance, under the DTSA, protectable trade secrets include information that “derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information.”[3]  Furthermore, such information can include “all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing.”[4]

Moreover, trade secrets can have an indefinite life, so long as they are kept secret and confidential.  For instance, under the DTSA, trade secret protection requires the owner of the trade secret to take “reasonable measures to keep such information secret.”[5]

An institution’s trade secrets can be its most valuable and prolonged assets.   However, institutions must take numerous steps in order to maintain the enforceability of their trade secrets.  Such steps include: (1) identifying the trade secrets; and (2) taking “reasonable measures” to maintain the secrecy of the trade secrets.
Continue Reading Protecting Your Most Valuable Assets: How to Identify and Maintain Your Institution’s Trade Secrets

The prosecution of a patent application before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) can be a prolonged and costly process. The patent prosecution process can include the issuance of an Office Action by the USPTO and the subsequent filing of an Office Action response by the applicant. While such communications can occur multiple times

“Rather than rest our decision on formalities, our focus is on what makes our on-sale bar jurisprudence coherent: preventing inventors from filing for patents a year or more after the invention has been commercially marketed, whether marketed by the inventor himself or a third party.”  The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., No. 2014-1469, slip

On June 19, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (Alice)[1].  In Alice, the Court held that several patents that pertained to a computerized platform for eliminating risk in conducting financial transactions between two parties were ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. §101[2]

There has been a lingering, divisive question in the software industry as to whether application programming interfaces (APIs) are entitled to copyright subject matter protection.  Critics argue that this type of source code is functional in nature and, as such, should not be protected by copyright. However, in Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

The WinTech blog previously covered a patent infringement lawsuit filed against the “Adam Carolla Show” from ACE Broadcasting Network, LLC.[1]  The plaintiff, Personal Audio, LLC, alleges that the “Adam Carolla Show” is infringing on their patent for a “[s]ystem for disseminating media content representing episodes in a serialized sequence.”[2]  The patent could also

     Obtaining a patent for an invention requires the crossing of many statutory hurdles.  One of the main statutory hurdles is to rebut any contentions by a patent examiner that an invention may be obvious (i.e., rebutting a prima facie case obviousness).   Many strategies may be utilized to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.

     By